Read the full judgment text of HCA 000945/2006 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 23 February 2007 before Deputy High Court Judge L. Chan.
Civil procedure – costs – striking out – variation of costs order nisi – whether costs order nisi should be varied from 30% to no order as to costs – whether defendants should pay costs of the variation application – Court of First Instance – intellectual property dispute involving 18 corporate defendants and 3 individual defendants – 2nd, 12th and 13th defendants had all claims against them struck out and the action dismissed as against them – various parts of the statement of claim struck out against remaining defendants – 18th, 19th and 20th defendants were nominal defendants – costs order nisi in two parts – first part required plaintiff to pay the 3rd and 12th defendants full costs – second part required plaintiff to pay the other defendants 30% of the costs of their striking-out applications – plaintiff applied to vary the second part to no order as to costs – plaintiff argued other defendants had only achieved about 35% success – mixed outcome of the striking-out exercise – court held that no order as to costs would achieve a fairer result for all concerned – second part of costs order nisi varied to no order as to costs – but other defendants ordered to pay the plaintiff's costs of the variation application because the error in the original order was obvious and the defendants chose to contest rather than settle – the passive manner of the contest was not a sufficient reason to depart from the usual costs consequences.
Legal issues: Variation of costs order nisi from 30% to no order as to costs · Costs of the application to vary the costs order nisi
Outcome: Second part of the costs order nisi varied from 30% to no order as to costs. The other defendants were ordered to pay the plaintiff's costs of the application to vary the costs order nisi.
Cited by 2 cases